A Quick, Simple Formula

[graymachine]

Religion=Belief

Belief="Faith"

"Faith"=Belief In Magic

Belief In Magic=Support of Magic

Support of Magic=Support of Chaos

Support of Chaos=Support of Madness

Therefore...

Religion=Support of Madness

Or, to abbreviate,

Religion=Madness

Anyone disagreeing feel free to post a response; I'll be happy to explain how you are wrong. Goodnight.

Comments

[aszhinra]

Consider that you accept most scientific theory and study as fact, without understanding all the minutue nuances that constitute the process leading to that result.

In essence, you accept it on good *faith*, because you assume that accredited men of learning are doing right by the empirical process. That you can trust in their results. But this is not always the case. Researchers will bend the truth to see the results that will get them more grant money. Theories warp to individual perspective, as well as groupthink attitudes about what is possible and what is preposterous.

Religion as the enemy is groupthink also. Every geek hates Christians and uses the same old tired line about the Crusades. Get a new argument. Fact is, there are people that lead personally fufilled and societally productive lives because they feel secure in their faith. Remember that nice old lady that worked at Wal-mart? People like that.

Sure religion comes up with a lot of stupid ideas, and a lot of people will bend it to their warped perspective, but often those people don't even know their own scripture. If you want to shoot down the ignorant ones, read and learn their text. Most of them don't.

[graymachine]

Actually, this is a fallacy of reason. Scientific fact is not accepted on "faith"; by virtue of my understanding of the Scientific Method and Logic, I am capable of understanding the process that any given theory is tested on and furthermore, it is not the case of "faith-in-authority" or "faith-in-experts" as the religious will desperately try to make it be. Experts (at least on real things) are not respected in opinion because we trust in what they say, being experts (circular logic), but because they are experts precisely because they employ reason and logic.
The statement you make about researchers is irrelivant; it is simply a "what if" and has no real relivance to the discussion; it is an opinion and may or may not be true in any given instance.
I don't really recall referencing the Crusades; I'm dealing more with the inherant and fundamental flaws in reason and morality that arise from religion, not any specific instance of this. What people like is also irrelivant; if it makes everyone in America happy and successful and orgasming every other second, this does not change the issues of truth and morality. A person of the religous mindset, assuming they believe in a "god" (whatever that is), is ultimately admitting that they would commit any crime or atrocity if behested to by that being. Furthermore, people lead personally fufilling and productive lifes without religion, so the merits of it seem to be questionable.

[ex_ka]

"Actually, this is a fallacy of reason. Scientific fact is not accepted on 'faith'; by virtue of my understanding of the Scientific Method and Logic, I am capable of understanding the process that any given theory is tested on and furthermore, it is not the case of 'faith-in-authority' or 'faith-in-experts' as the religious will desperately try to make it be."

You personally do not know the forumlae and essence of quantum physics, but you are more willing to ascribe to them than religion, because a man in a lab coat tells you he does, and you believe he has the credentials to be trusted.

I see no difference between this and someone that trusts a man in a black robe who claims to have a higher connection to God and is capable of advising people on the nature of the universe, because those people instill trust in that same form of authority.

"Experts (at least on real things) are not respected in opinion because we trust in what they say, being experts (circular logic), but because they are experts precisely because they employ reason and logic."

Or so you have faith in them to do so.

"The statement you make about researchers is irrelivant; it is simply a 'what if' and has no real relivance to the discussion; it is an opinion and may or may not be true in any given instance."

Actually, it is well-documented and often discussed problem. It is why there are studies on professional ethics.

"I don't really recall referencing the Crusades; I'm dealing more with the inherant and fundamental flaws in reason and morality that arise from religion, not any specific instance of this. What people like is also irrelivant; if it makes everyone in America happy and successful and orgasming every other second, this does not change the issues of truth and morality."

Regarding the Crusades; you've done it before if not here. Truth and Morality as the absolutes you speak of are as subjective as religion.

"A person of the religous mindset, assuming they believe in a "god" (whatever that is), is ultimately admitting that they would commit any crime or atrocity if behested to by that being."

In your opinion anyway.

"Furthermore, people lead personally fufilling and productive lifes without religion, so the merits of it seem to be questionable."

Just as true, and I'm not trying to say one extreme or the other would make everyone happy, but I do say, if someone's beliefs aren't hurting you and your's, then let them believe or worship whatever they want. I don't agree with all scientific theory, nor do I believe most religious dogma, and I certainly don't believe in what the schizophrenic on the street mumbles to himself about--but so long as they are no harm to themselves or others, I could care less. Let sleeping dogs lie.

To believe you can weed out religious practice for the fantastical utopian idea of "their own good" is frankly fascist.

[cercops]

>I see no difference between this and someone that trusts a man in a black robe >who claims to have a higher connection to God and is capable of advising >people on the nature of the universe, because those people instill trust in >that same form of authority.

You imply here that any time one places trust in the statements of another individual is faith, and is the same thing as placing trust in any other individual. I think this is obviously untrue: trusting the words of a random guy telling you there is a popsicle in his pocket is probably different from trusting a cnn news report. Now, it is possible that there is a popsicle in Dr. Molestache's pocket, and that the cnn article is spun, exagerated, or downright wrong: and yet I still believe there is a fundamental difference in trusting one source or the other. One has good reason to trust that the cnn report has some accuracy, even while excepting that it is not true to 100% certainty. Believing the facts behind the cnn report, while responsibly paying attention to possible spin, is not faith- its deduction. Reason A and B indicate that CNN is probably accurate to a great degree (requirements fro a competitive news sources, history of verifiably accuracy), CNN made this report, so I can believe the facts in this report are true with a large amount of certainty. Now ask a Catholic why they believe the pope is infallible when speaking officialy on a mater of faith or morals, or even better, ask a southern babtist why they believe in god or why they believe homosexuality is evil, and critically consider their answer. When eximed closly, the word faith generally means a reason to believe in something there is no good reason to believe in.

However, this is looking at the trees not the forest: religions are much more then philosophies and belief systems-- they are cultural institutions. And like almost any culutural institution, they can be both a great boon and a great curse to society. Religions have sereved the societal purposes of education, socilization, aiding personal developing, enhancing communication, cultural unification, welfare, and others. They have also served the purposes of oppresing people, ideas, and societal development. They are much like the government, families, and universities in this.

However, the fundamental difference between religion and other institutions is that the belief system behind it is based on the negation of reason. In the best circumstances, for example several eastern schools of philosophy, religion only asks that you start with certain fundamental sacred truths and then proceed using your own mental facilities. In the worst cases, for example many brainwashing type cults, the mental facilities of the worshiper are made the enemy and it is high act of devotion to completely destroy and circumvent them.

I believe that while, like any institution, the value of religion has to be judge on a case by case basis, the core belief in discarding reason on a certian point is inherantly dangerous and unhealthy. Just as when scientists allow themselves to consider certain facts sacred, when humans allow certain things to no longer be subject to reason, the results will be random and best and often destructive. Take the most good, kind, heroic, intelligent individual possible, and make it so that that take the words of the bible as infallible. That individual will now be bound to oppress religious freedom, oppose evolution, oppose women's rights, and probably oppose homosexuality as an evil abomintation. The more true to himself, the more honest, the stonger his adherence to his code of ethics, the stronger his devotion to these destructive causes will be.

Then again, the same could be said of intelligent medical professionals from the midevil period who bled to death many people in the name of hippocrates.

[ex_ka]

I generally agree with just about everything you've said.

The only real solid point I was trying to establish to David was that not every religious person should be thought of as a rabid dog to be put down, nor every religion an inherently dangerous cult.

I completely agree with what you've said about religion as a subset of culture. Anthropologists have known this as a standard element of any culture.

Religion is in a sense, the symptom, and not the disease.